Lutz Doering

Wilhelm Bousset’s Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter

Der Aufsatz ordnet Wilhelm Boussets Werk Die Religion des Judentums im neutesta- mentlichen Zeitalter in seinen forschungsgeschichtlichen Kontextund in das Oeuvre des Autors ein. Er bespricht Quellengrundlage,Methode und ideologischen Zugang Boussets, insbesondere den Einfluss Thomas Carlyles und Boussets Sicht des Juden- tums als auf halber Strecke zwischen Partikularismus und Universalismus stehenge- blieben. Boussets Beitrag zur Erforschung antiker jüdischer Religion wird kritisch ge- würdigt. Keywords: Wilhelm Bousset, Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,particularism and universalism, Thomas Carlyle,Protestant scholarship on ancient Judaism, anti-Judaism, “Spätjudentum”

1. Die Religion des Judentums in Its Scholarly Contextand in Bousset’s Oeuvre

When Wilhelm Bousset published DieReligion desJudentums im neutes- tamentlichenZeitalter (henceforth: RJ)in1903, he assigned to thebook “merely the significance of afirst go” (“nur die Bedeutungeinesersten Wurfs”).1 This mayhavebeen, in part, an expression of modesty. As is well known, Boussetrespondedquickly to criticism leveledagainst the book.Apart from adismissive responsetosome of his Jewish critics, above all Felix Perles,2 he considered severalofthe pointsraisedinthe re-

1 W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin, 1903), VII. English translations are my own;additionally the German wording is quoted where deemed significant. 2 W. Bousset, Volksfrömmigkeit und Schriftgelehrtentum (Berlin, 1903), responding to F. Perles, Bousset’s Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter kritischunter- sucht (Berlin, 1903). In this publication, Bousset also responded to M. Güdemann, “Das Judenthum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter in christlicher Darstellung,” MGWJ 47 (1903), 38–58, 120–136, 231–249, though much more favorably than to Perles;see below, at n. 18. For athorough evaluation of the controversy between Bousset and his Jewish critics see C. Wiese, Challenging Colonial Discourse:Jewish Studies and Protestant

Early 6 (2015), 51–66 DOI 10.1628/186870315X14249562917993 ISSN 1868-7032 ©2015 Mohr Siebeck 52 Lutz Doering views in asecond editionin1906 (henceforth: RJ2), in which part of the disposition,though not the general direction,ofthe work was changed.3 But the referenceto“afirst go”also conveys Bousset’sconsciousness that this book, as “umfassende Darstellung der Religion desSpätjudentums,” was virtually the first of its kind.4 To be sure, there weresome attempts at such an overall account, but they werequite different in shape and approach. Bousset himself mentions onewho preceded him in asimilar enterprise, August Friedrich Gfrörer,5 although he would not accept the latter’sfocus on rabbinic literature.6 Sim- ilar,and even stronger,isBousset’s complaint about Ferdinand Weber, whose System deraltsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie7 had been, for severaldecades,the Christian standardwork beforeBillerbeck’s collection of rabbinic “parallels” outstripped it:8 Bousset limits its role to that of an “auxiliary tool for the knowledge of contemporary Pharisaic theology.”9

Theology in Wilhemine Germany (trans. B. Harshavand C. Wiese;Studies in European Judaism 10;Leiden, 2005), 177–205. 3 Cf. A.F. Verheule, Wilhelm Bousset, Lebenund Werk:Ein theologiegeschichtlicher Versuch (Amsterdam, 1973), 99:“Diese Änderung [sc. of the disposition] ist aber nur eine for- melle, Bousset hat das Buch nicht wirklich umgestaltet.” –The preface to the 2nd edition does not repeat the phrase about the “ersten Wurf” but still admits that there is much to be learned in the field covered in the book (RJ2,VIII). 4 RJ,VII. 5 RJ,VII. –A.F. Gfrörer, Geschichtedes Urchristenthums,vol. 1, Das Jahrhundertdes Heils (2 parts;Stuttgart, 1838). With his rhetoric of the “first go,” Bousset echoes Gfrörer,who wrote:“Schwer ist der Pfad des Geschichtschreibers [sic],besonders dessen, der,wie ich, einen Gegenstand behandelt, welcher von Anderen kaum, oder gar nicht berührt wor- den ist;fast überall habe ich die erste Furchedurch das Neubruchland gezogen” (ibid., vol. 1/1, V–VI). Gfrörer,who kept theological evaluation largely outside of his presen- tation of Judaism, was initially seldom followed, until Bousset rediscovered him;cf. H.- G. Waubke, Die Pharisäer in der protestantischen Bibelwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts (BHT 107;Tübingen, 1998), 60. 6 RJ,49:“Die spätere jüdische Tradition hat er […] ungesichtet und ziemlich kritiklos ver- wertet. Auch ist seine Darstellung oft im Material stecken geblieben. Aber der ganze Wurf [NB] ist groß und kühn gedacht.” 7 F. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud (ed. F. Delitzsch and G. Schnedermann;Leipzig, 1880);2nd ed. under the title Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften (Leipzig, 1897). 8 See the critique of Weber by C.G. Montefiore, JQR 13/2 (1901), 171–173, and especially G.F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921), 197–254, here 228–237, followed by E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism:AComparison of Patterns of Re- ligion (Minneapolis, 1977), 34–39. More recently, see Waubke, Pharisäer (see n. 5), 250– 256, and the somewhat milder assessment by R. Deines, Die Pharisäer:Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz (WUNT 101; Tübingen, 1997), 245–255. 9 RJ,52;RJ2,58:“treffliches Hülfsmittel zur Kenntnis der zeitgenössischen pharisäischen Theologie.” In light of the limits of this acknowledgement, Sanders, Paul (see n. 8), 39–40, Bousset’s Religion des Judentums 53 Some attempts remainmerely at the fringes of Bousset’s radar,suchasthat by the Roman (later:Old) Catholic professor Joseph Langen,10 whosetake, according to Bousset, was shaped too muchbydogmatics and limited in its consideration of sources.11 Other publications were closer to Bousset’s heart, but they coveredonlyaspects of the topic,such as Paul Volz’s Jüdi- sche Eschatologie,12 which Bousset praised as the definitive work in RJ2,13 or provided the wider historical frameworkfor the period under consid- eration, such as Julius Wellhausen’s Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte and, of course, especially EmilSchürer’s Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes.14 Among the moregeneralpublications, Bousset mentionsthe foundational studiesofthe Wissenschaft des Judentums merely en passant,criticizing their slim coverageofthe Apocryphaand Pseudepigraphaand their focus on later rabbinic tradition. The only exception (in RJ2)isMori(t)z Friedländer,whom he credits with “a highly remarkable, independent view, for aJewish scholar,”15 although Bousset disagreeswith his sharp dis- tinctionbetweenDiaspora Judaism and PalestinianPharisaism. As much as it commends Friedländer,Bousset’s remark reveals his bias against Jew- ish scholarsingeneral. However,whatdistinguishedBoussetmost was that he was the first within thedeveloping Religionsgeschichtliche Schule at Göttingen to write extensively on ancient Judaism. RJ was the first comprehensive ac- countofancient Judaism from theperspective of the “school,” and Bousset

probably overemphasizes Bousset’s dependence on Weber. Note Hugo Gressmann’s changed tone in the 3rd ed.:“Ein nur mit Vorsicht zu benutzendes Hilfsmittel zur Kenntnis der zeitgenössischen pharisäischen Theologie”: W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (3rd ed. by H. Gressmann;HNT 21;Tü- bingen, 1926), 50 (henceforth: RJ3). 10 J. Langen, Das Judenthum in Palästina zur Zeit Christi (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1866). 11 RJ,49–50. The latter verdict is not entirely fair:Langen considered as broad arange of sources as were available in 1866 (lengthily presented in Langen, Judenthum [see n. 10], 23–182) and, while criticizing Gfrörer for his use of the Talmud for earlier periods, he reasoned, with Wilhelm M.L. de Wette, that the Mishnah “dürfe nicht gänzlich umgan- gen werden,” though he thought the “casuistic” nature of the Mishnah had little to con- tribute “für unsere Aufgabe” (ibid.,180). 12 P. Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (Tübingen, 1903). 13 RJ2,55:“Überholt sind alle Arbeiten auf diesem Gebiet durch die ungemein gründliche und eindringende Arbeit von P. Volz […].” 14 J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (4th ed.;Berlin, 1901;5th ed. 1904); E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,vol. 1(3rd/4th ed.; Leipzig, 1901);vols. 2–3 (3rd ed.;Leipzig, 1898). Cf. RJ,51–52. 15 RJ2,56: “Eine für einen jüdischen Gelehrten höchst bemerkenswerte, unabhängige Sicht der Dinge.” On similarities and differences between Friedländer’sviews of Juda- ism and those of Bousset and liberal Protestantism, cf. Waubke, Pharisäer (see n. 5), 280–283. 54 Lutz Doering remained its leading voice in the field. In addition, it is certainly significant for an assessment of Bousset’s oeuvre that he deals extensively withancient Judaism in RJ and RJ2,and with in his Hauptproblemeder Gnosis,before focusing on thedevelopment of in his Kyrios Christos.16 There is more thanapinch of irony here. As arepresentative of the his- tory of religionsschool, Boussetclearly made apoint of anon-dogmatic, comparativeapproachthat drew on ancient sources acrossthe religions and aimedattheir purely historicaltreatment. Arguably, therefore, some aspects of the new approach “stirred hope for afairerperception of Jewish history and tradition,”17 particularly amongst Jewishscholars, such as Moritz Güdemann, who,criticism notwithstanding, deemed RJ superior to any earlier work on thetopic by aChristianwriter.18 Yet, Bous- set’s own earlier programmatic foray into thefield of ancient Jewishreli- gion had set Judaism in sharp contrast with of Nazareth.This washis 1892 booklet Jesu Predigt im Gegensatz zum Judentum,19 aresponse to Jo- hannes Weiss’ Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes.20 In thesepublications, the two Göttingenscholars –who were friends –exemplified sharply op- posing models of relatingJesus to Judaism within the emerginghistory of religions school.21 While Weiss saw Jesus’eschatologicalpreaching in close connectionwith Jewish apocalyptic literature,Bousset, in 1892, strongly emphasized the opposition betweenthe two:“Late Judaism”22

16 W. Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis (FRLANT 10;Göttingen, 1907); Kyrios Christos: Geschichtedes Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenäus (2nd ed. by G. Krüger;FRLANT 21;Göttingen, 1921 [1st ed.,1913]);Engl. trans., Kyrios Chris- tos:AHistory of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to (trans. J.E. Steely;Nashville, 1970;re-ed. with anew introduction by L.W. Hurtado;Waco, Tex.,2013). 17 Wiese, Challenging Colonial Discourse (see n. 2), 171. 18 Cf. Güdemann, “Judenthum” (see n. 2), 45:“Dennoch verdient sie [sc. RJ][…] vor allen übrigen anerkannt zu werden. Es zeigt sich hier ein ernstes Streben, den wirklichen Sachverhalt zu ermitteln und zu schildern, das zwar unzulänglicher Mittel sich bedient, aber schon durch sich selbst bewirkt, dass die Darstellung mit wenigen Ausnahmen her- gebrachter Vornehmthuerei auf einen Ton gestimmt ist, wie man ihn bisher nicht ge- wohnt war.” 19 W. Bousset, Jesu Predigt im Gegensatz zum Judentum:Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Ver- such (Göttingen, 1892). 20 J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen, 1892). 21 On the ambivalence within the “school” regarding the image of Judaism and the oppos- ing views of Weiss and the early Bousset, cf. also A. Gerdmar, Roots of Theological Anti- Semitism:German BiblicalInterpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann (Studies in Jewish History and Culture 20;Leiden, 2009), 143–150. 22 On this problematic term and the concept connected with it, cf. K. Müller, Das Juden- tum in der religionsgeschichtlichen Arbeit am NeuenTestament:Eine kritische Rückschau Bousset’s Religion des Judentums 55 as presented by Boussethere,23 petrified on account of its law observance and bereft of the freshness of prophets and psalter,24 had becomea“nasty and unpleasantphenomenon.”25 The gospel therefore had to “lay new foundations”26 and mark a“complete break”with Judaism.27 AgainstJew- ish particularism and nationalism, Jesus announced Gottvaterglauben and Kindesbewusstsein,allegedly unattested in Judaism.28 In this, Bousset was more influenced thanWeissbygeneraltendencies within wider Protes- tant scholarshipofcontrasting the with Jewish “parallels” in order to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian pointofview,29 especially by Wellhausen’sclaim of the “degeneration” of Israelite reli- gion.30 But more specifically, as Weissalready commentedinthe second edition of his own book, Bousset developed the contrast betweenJudaism and Jesus against the–openly acknowledged –backdrop of the “hero wor- ship” propagated by the Scottishwriter and historian Thomas Carlyle.31 However,by1903 Boussethad abandoned this pointedly antagonistic view, and in RJ he recognized “the one-sided emphasisofthe opposition between the Jewish and the evangelical faith” as a“mistake.”32 He would now credit“Late Judaism” with acrucial preparatory role. Nonetheless, precisely at this point, the influence of Carlyle would remainpalpable

auf dieEntwicklung einer Methodik bis zu den Qumranfunden (Judentum und Umwelt 6; Frankfurt am Main, 1983), 103–117. 23 Bousset, Jesu Predigt (see n. 19), 10–41. 24 Bousset, Jesu Predigt (see n. 19), 17. 25 Bousset, Jesu Predigt (see n. 19), 27. 26 Bousset, Jesu Predigt (see n. 19), 39. 27 Bousset, Jesu Predigt (see n. 19), 85. 28 Cf. Bousset, Jesu Predigt (see n. 19), 41–43. 29 Cf. Deines, Pharisäer (see n. 8), 99. 30 Cf. Waubke, Pharisäer (see n. 5), 274. 31 Cf. J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (2nd ed.;Göttingen, 1900 [= 3rd ed., 1964]), 56. On Carlyle see below. Weiss makes his comment in the context of arespectful but distinguished critique of Wellhausen’sview of Jesus, which he equally perceived to be under the influence of Carlyle –here apparently unacknowledged by the author. Weiss accepts the importance of Carlyle but distinguishes between the latter’s pragmat- ic, political purposes of historiography and contrasts him with the “Aktenforscher,dem Akribie die höchste Tugend ist” (ibid.);“wer ein lebendiges, concretes Bild, eine wirk- liche Geschichtsanschauung, sucht, darf nicht nach seinem Geschmack eklektisch ver- fahren, sondern hat sich mit sorgfältiger Anlehnung von den Quellen leiten zu lassen” (ibid.,57). 32 Cf. RJ,52: “Eine Charakterisierungder Gesamtfrömmigkeit des Spätjudentums habe ich […] 1892 […] versucht, bin dabei aber in den entgegengesetzten Fehler [sc. as com- pared with Wilhelm Baldensperger’s idealizing picture of apocalyptic Judaism] einer zu einseitigen Hervorhebung des Gegensatzes der jüdischen gegen die evangelische Fröm- migkeit verfallen.” 56 Lutz Doering in RJ and RJ2,aswill be arguedlater in this paper.Several scholars have pointed out that, after RJ2,Bousset even cametovalue Pharisaism as the soil in which Christianityrooted,33 and that he criticized his ownear- lier view of the Pharisees in RJ(2).34 Another shift thathappened after RJ2 in Bousset’s intellectualdevelopment was hisadoption of neo-Friesianist positions from around1909 onward,thus several years before Kyrios Christos. This impliedamove away from historicist liberalism towards the search for firm criteria of religious phenomena,which Fries had found in the knowledge of the heart, claimedtobesuperiortorational knowledge. While Bousset in Kyrios Christos arguably connects the ap- proaches of Carlyle and Jakob FriedrichFries,35 the latter’sinfluence is not yet clearlydetectable in RJ or RJ2.

2. Bousset’s Sources

Like Gfrörer, Langen and Weber, Bousset starts with asection on “the sources.”36 Thetreatment is relatively brief.The focus in the book is on what Boussetcalls “the New Testament age” and what Gressmann in the thirdedition rebrands“the Late Hellenistic age”:the periodbetween ca. 175 BCE and 135 CE,between Antiochus IVand Bar Kokhba. As we shall see, the entire period thus delimited is perceivedasanage of crisis. Bousset mentionsafew texts “directly preceding our period,”37 such as Siracides, Tobit, and the beginnings of the Greek translation of the Pen- tateuch, before turning to the literature of the Maccabean age, first in Pal- estine.Inline with some fairly late dating en vogue at the time, he reckons with numerous Maccabean psalms in thePsalter andmentionsthe book of Esther, Zachariah 9–14,Ezra-Nehemiah-Chronicles, Qohelet, Daniel, 1Enoch,38 Jubilees,39 the Jewish Grundschrift of the Testamentsofthe

33 Cf. Verheule, Bousset (see n. 3), 129;Waubke, Pharisäer (see n. 5), 275;Wiese, Chal- lenging Colonial Discourse (see n. 2), 205–207. 34 Cf. W. Bousset, “Literatur und Religion des Judentums:II. Religion,” TRu 18 (1915), 115–131, here 120–123. 35 Cf. K. Berger, Exegese und Philosophie (SBS 123/124;Stuttgart, 1986), 114–126. On Bousset’s adoption of neo-Friesianism, see also Verheule, Bousset (see n. 3), 382–392. 36 “Die Quellen,” counted as “Erster Abschnitt” in RJ and outside the numeration in RJ2. 37 RJ2,6. 38 Recognized as composite but without the delimitations and dates prevalent in current scholarship, in which the Book of Watchers and the Astronomical Book are dated to (at least) the third century BCE. Bousset’s Religion des Judentums 57 Twelve Patriarchs,and,towards theend of theperiod, the Psalms of Solo- mon. The historical books,such as 1Maccabees and Judith, are “ofless in- terest to us.”40 Regarding “Hellenistic Judaism,”thatis, Diaspora literature of the same period, he refers to the Greek Old Testament, with some fluc- tuation as to its statusoutside thePentateuch, apologetic Jewish sections in the SibyllineOracles (Sib. Or. 3:97–829), andfragments of Hellenistic- Jewish writers transmitted by AlexanderPolyhistor. For the Herodian and post-Herodian periods in Palestine, Bousset notesa“sharp decrease in literary productivity.”41 Of apocalypticlitera- ture, only Assumptio Mosis and 2Enoch42 are mentioned;inaddition, among“haggadic”pieces, there are the Life of Adam and Eve (with pref- erence for the Latin version),the Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham, Joseph and Aseneth,and the Martyrdom of Isaiah (in AscensioIsaiae). The Dias- pora of the same periodpresents us with aricherpicture:forged verses ascribed to Greek poets,Ps.-Hecataeus, the Letter of Aristeas,43 Aristobu- lus,44 Ps.-Phocylides,Greek Esther, Sapientia Salomonis,and 2–4 Macca- bees. Bousset notes some“progress” in AlexandrianDiaspora literaturein this periodinthat the “syncretisticcharacter” of the earlier times hasgiven way to a“more rigid self-confidence.”45 In the midst of this, Philo of Al- exandria is alonely genius, without much influence but,inhis own right, of the utmost interest.46 Fromafter the Temple destruction, Boussetmentions 4Ezra,Baruch (LXX), 2–4Baruch,further booksofthe Sibylline Oracles,and Flavius Jose- phus.Non-Jewish literature may be relevantfor illumination;Boussetre- fers to the Greekand Romanauthors, as well as the booksofthe New Tes- tament, as amatter of course subsumed under the rubric of “non-Jewish,” and other early Christian texts. Last, Boussetmentions“later”Jewish lit- erature:the Mishnah (“thedriest interpretation of the Lawinall its de-

39 Dated by Bousset to 135–104 BCE,that is, at the lower end of the current spectrum of dates, for which see J.C. VanderKam, “Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees,” CBR 6(2008), 405–432, here:407–409. 40 RJ2,17: “kommen für uns weniger in Betracht.” 41 RJ2,23: “ein starkes Nachlassen schriftstellerischer Produktivität.” 42 Cf. RJ2,23–24, where the “syncretistic” character of 2Enoch is used to date it later than the Maccabean period, while its Jewish provenance in general is maintained. 43 Dated to 40 BCE–30 CE. 44 The Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and Torah interpreter Aristobulus is now dated somewhere in the middle of the second century BCE (Nikolaus Walter) or more precisely to 176–170 BCE (Martin Hengel, Carl Holladay);cf. C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hel- lenistic-JewishAuthors,vol. 3, Aristobulus (SBLTT 39;Atlanta, 1995), 74–75. 45 RJ2,36. 46 RJ2,37. 58 Lutz Doering tails,” except for Avot,which is the soletractate “directly valuable forus”),47 the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud, the Tosefta (in this order),the Targumim, and (early) Midrashim.48 He assertsthatasystematicanalysis of this literature would generateagreat deal of highly relevant material; butsince no onehas done such work, “we must subject ourselves to the greatest restriction in the useofthis material.”49 In addition, Bousset men- tions later haggadic works,which he claims carry nuggets of oldertradi- tion, such as the smaller Midrashim collectedbyJellinek (Beth ha-Mid- rasch), Ps.-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Josippon, Sefer ha-Ya- shar,the Chronicle of Yerahme’el,aswell as texts transmitted by Christians, such as the Testament of Abraham and the Testament of Job –altogether quite amixed bag. Finally, he pointstolater apocalyptic literature,suchasEldadand Modad,the ApocalypseofElijah and the Apoc- alypse of Zephaniah. Bousset’s considerably late dating of someofthe texts (Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, 1Enoch, Letter of Aristeas,Aristobulus, also Jubilees,Baruch [LXX]) is significant. It has the effect thathemissesimportanthistorical linkswith the fourth,third and early second centuries BCE:according to currentscholarship, notall of these texts(or,asinthe case of 1Enoch, not all of their parts) respond to thespecific “crisis”duringthe reign of Antiochus IV. Even more important is Bousset’s sidelining of certain texts, such as 1MaccabeesorJudith, and especially of the Mishnah:it seemsasifthe much later mixed bag of haggadicmaterial wasofgreater interesttohim than the earliest Tannaitic text.50 Bousset was not yet aware of the Damascus Document,already discovered but not yetedited when RJ(2) appeared.51 Sincethen, of course, our source basishas been im- mensely enrichedbythe Dead Sea Scrolls, both those from Qumran and those from othersites in the Judean Desert. Moreover,papyri and in- scriptions, most of which were not yet availabletoBousset, are increasing-

47 RJ2,45. –For acurrent view of Avot as apost-mishnaic text with an extended process of redaction, see G. Stemberger,“Mischna Avot:Frühe Weisheitsschrift, pharisäisches Erbe oder spätrabbinische Bildung?” in Judaica Minora,vol. 2(TSAJ 138;Tübingen, 2010), 317–330. 48 For the haggadic portions of the Talmud and the Midrashim, Bousset refers to the Ger- man translations by August Wünsche. 49 RJ2,48. 50 Gressmann re-orders and expands the section on rabbinic literature, but emphasizes that individual older traditions within rabbinic literature are “only used to comple- ment” the picture obtained from the older,contemporary sources (RJ3,41). 51 Gressmann inserts abrief paragraph after Jub. and T. 12 Patr. that emphasizes its con- nection with these (RJ3,15–16). Bousset’s Religion des Judentums 59 ly considered in the study of ancient Judaism. For theabsence of all of this, we cannotfault Bousset.However,his preference for the contemporary apocalypticliterature leaves an ambiguousimpression. On the one hand, Boussetdefacto anticipates some of the methodological skepticism in the consideration and dating of rabbinic traditions that would subse- quently be formulated by scholars like Jacob Neusner,Karlheinz Müller or Günter Stemberger.52 On the otherhand, Bousset’s account remains glaringly one-sided. The rationalisation of his preference in terms of a contrast between Volksfrömmigkeit and Schriftgelehrtentum53 is problem- atic and ultimately motivatedbythe default preference of the “school” for religious experienceatthe expense of theologyand dogma.54 Materially, Bousset’scontrast is too stark and overlooks the fact that apocalypticlit- erature,too, wasthe product of scribal elites.55 Bousset’strajectory of the “scribes”from Ezra, over individual exemplars in the late Hasmonean pe- riod and their clearemergence only from the Herodian era56 does not do justicetothe complexities in the referencesto“scribes”;57 it also, somewhat ironically, follows the rabbis’fictions of their predecessors and conflates them with the “scribes” of the New Testament.Moreover, in Bousset’s treatment, connections betweenrabbinictraditionand earliertexts, for examplethe similarity in halakhicpositions –ofboth the Pharisees and their opponents –with positions discussed in rabbinicliterature,58 or the similarities between 4Ezra and 2Baruch with somerabbinic tradi- tions, are largely lost. True, the position of Perles and other contemporary

52 Cf.,e.g., J. Neusner, Judaism:The Evidence of the Mishnah (2nd augmented ed.;BJS 129;Atlanta, 1988), 14–22;K.Müller,“Zur Datierung rabbinischer Aussagen,” in Neues Testament und Ethik:FSR.Schnackenburg (ed. H. Merklein;Freiburg im Breis- gau, 1989), 551–587;G.Stemberger,“Dating Rabbinic Traditions,” in The New Testa- ment and Rabbinic Literature (ed. R. Bieringer et al.;JSJSup 136;Leiden, 2010), 79–96. 53 Cf. the title of his 1903 response to F. Perles (above, n. 2). 54 Cf. Müller, Judentum (see n. 22), 69–70. 55 Cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (trans. F.H. and C.H. Cave;London, 1969), 239 (German orig., Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu:Kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte [3rd rev. ed.;Göttingen, 1962],272): “Statements such as Bousset’s,that apocalyptic literature contained the religion of the people and Talmudic the theology of the scribes, turns truth upside down.” Jeremias thought that “[t]he apocalyptic writings of late Judaism […] contained the esoteric teachings of the scribes” (ibid.). 56 RJ2,186–191. 57 For arecent study that pays attention to the differences in the portrayals and roles of scribes in Jewish texts, see C. Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (JSOT291;Sheffield, 1998), esp. her model, ibid.,309–327. 58 Cf. only A. Shemesh, Halakhahinthe Making:From Qumran to the Rabbis (Berkeley, 2009). 60 Lutz Doering Jewish critics that the Apocrypha andPseudepigrapha were mere under- currents and thatrabbinic literature can be directly used to elucidate Sec- ondTemple Judaism is problematic, too. However,merely turning this one-sidedness on its head is not good enough, at least not from apoint of view informed by currentmethodologicalstandards. Anotherproblem, already pointedout by his contemporary Jewish critics, is Bousset’s un- critical use of polemical representationsofthe Pharisees,and the Jews in general, in the New Testament.59

3. Judaism as Stuck Halfway between Particularism and Universalism

The first section of the book as revised in RJ2 outlines the foundational tension between“universal tendencies” and “national contingency” in Jewish religion. In RJ,Boussethere described “the development of Jewish faith into the church,” that is, from nationalism to universalism, but he later deemedthistrajectory too rigid. The tension betweenuniversalism and particularism in Judaismissimilar to tendenciesinIranian religion and Greco-Roman mystery cults but is better, and earlier,documented than these, so that it becomes something like ashowcase for theseproc- esses in general. The beginnings of universalism are in exile:what is founded after the return is areligious community, a Tempelgemeinde, not the oldJewish state. The Maccabean rising brought both the national and the “ecclesial” (kirchlich,Bousset’sterm for “universalist”)tendencyto the fore, but the latterhad the upper hand.With it, an “unrulyfermenta- tion,” a“seething chaos,”60 entered Judaism. However,the development towards universalism got stuckhalfway down theroad,even in the Dias- pora, where Jews were seen as something between areligious association and aclub of foreigners. Nationalist markers, such as the holiness of the people, the land, and the city of Jerusalem,became characteristic of Jewish religion. In Palestine, nationalist cleavage rose up time and again,for the last time during thetwo Jewish wars,inboth of which the“ecclesial”camp (the Pharisees, the early rabbis)stood aside or even (like R. Akiva)sup- ported the nationalistcamp. Even after the Jewish nation had finally col- lapsed, this element continuedtoexert influence.Bousset uses starkly value-laden termswhen he writes:“With abitter grudge,Judaism retreat-

59 Cf. Wiese, Challenging Colonial Discourse (see n. 2), 180–181. 60 RJ2,60: “ein unruhiges Gären”; 594:“aus jenem gärenden Chaos.” Bousset’s Religion des Judentums 61 ed from the world, anation that couldneither livenor die, achurch that couldnot free itself from national existence andthus remained asect.”61 Judaism thus achieves an important Vorarbeit62 for theuniversal reli- gion but never quite gets there. The tension between the two tendencies runs throughsome of the concepts and beliefs Boussetdiscusses in later chapters. Thus,the law comestoreplace the national cult –for Bousset an ambivalent development,since it marks both the victory of “lay reli- gion”over the “exterior” piety of the priestsand at thesametime the vol- untarysubmission under asimilarly “exterior” observance of the law. To be sure, the law showstraits of universalism,especiallyinits moral aspects and in Jewish propaganda about it, but in general its character is partic- ularistic. Here, Bousset continues to be influenced by the disparaging view of SecondTemple Judaism as legalistic and barren, associated particularly with the nameofJuliusWellhausen.63 At the end of the book, Bousset claims thatthe belief about the “other world” never quite “clears” the “fa- natic, particularistically restrained notion of the future in Israelite reli- gion.” “One had to come who was greater than apocalyptics and rabbinic theologians, there had to be anew formation in the gospel, before the unity and vividness of genuine andtruereligion mightrise again out of that seething chaos.”64

4. The ImpactofCarlyle on Die Religion des Judentums

It is herewithin the book thatthe impactofThomasCarlyle’s view of his- tory is most clearly evident.65 Bousset had been an ardent follower of Carl- yle at least since the time of his Göttingen doctoral disputationin1890,

61 RJ2,110. 62 RJ2,63, 594. 63 Cf. Müller, Judentum (see n. 22), 70–71, quoting the account about this view in H.-J. Kraus, “Zum Gesetzesverständnis der nachprophetischen Zeit,” Kairos 11 (1969), 122–133, here 122:“spätestens seit Esras Auftreten versperrt ‘das Gesetz’den leben- digen Zugang zu Gott. Die prophetischen und poetischen Impulse sterben ab. Buchsta- benglauben und starre, schriftgelehrte Beschäftigung mit den fixierten Traditionen werden zu Signaturen der dunklen Sphäre, die sich zwischen den Gipfeln prophetischer Frömmigkeit und neutestamentlicher Verkündigung erstreckt.” 64 RJ2,594:“Es musste einer,der grösser als Apokalyptiker und rabbinische Theologen war,kommen, es musste im Evangeliumeine Neubildung erfolgen, ehe aus jenem gärenden Chaos wieder die Einheit und die Lebendigkeit echter und wahrer Frömmig- keit entstehen konnte.” 65 On Bousset and Carlyle cf. Berger, Exegese und Philosophie (see n. 35), esp. 91–114;Ver- heule, Bousset (see n. 3), 373–375. 62 Lutz Doering one thesis of whichhas clear affinitywith Carlyle.66 In 1897Boussetpub- lished an article in which he celebrated Carlyle as a“prophet of the nine- teenthcentury.”67 And still in oneofhis final lectures in the summer term of 1919, Boussetreferred to Carlyle for his view of Christ worship.68 Carl- yle had disseminated GermanIdealism on theBritish Isles, and in the po- litically and sociallycontextualized form represented by Carlyle’s work this Idealism came back to Bousset and others who wrote at the fin de siè- cle. In RJ(2),Bousset is indebted to Carlyle in particular for his notionsof “Formulas,”the “revolutionary period,”and “hero-worship.” “Formulas” are necessarybut temporary exteriorcovers for finaltruths;69 Carlyle com- pares them to the“skin and musculartissue of aMan’s Life.”70 Over time, Formulas becomedead, “wearing thicker and thicker,uglier and uglier;till no heart any longercan be felt beating through them.”71 Only artificially are they kept up:underthem, explosivematter begins to gather. Carlyle outlines this as the revolutionary period, in which social relations and, per- haps evenmore importantly, the authority of the leaders deteriorate.72 This is aclear inspiration for Bousset’snotion of the “seething chaos,” which he identifies, inter alia,73 in Judaism. Finally, Bousset follows Carlyle in the suggestionthat, in the midst of crisis, new leaders emerge. Carlyle portrays these “GreatMen” as “heroes,” who are followed and revered in the “hero-worship” of the masses.74 Par- ticularlyinKyrios Christos,Bousset adopts Carlyle’s hero-worship as the

66 Cf. Berger, Exegese und Philosophie (see n. 35), 87, 91 (it is Bousset’s thesis no. 21). 67 W. Bousset, “Thomas Carlyle:Ein Prophet des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts,” Die Christ- liche Welt 11 (1897), 249–253, 267–271, 296–299, 324–327. 68 W. Bousset, “Neutestamentliche Religionsgeschichte II. Teil, Vorlesung im Sommerse- mester 1919,” 85 (unpublished), as given by Verheule, Bousset (see n. 3), 373:Carlyle’s book On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History shows “wie die Menschheit von ihren Großen langsam emporgeführt wird zu Gott. Die Verehrung Jesu ist ein Fall unter vielen. Von allen der höchste ist Jesus von Nazareth. Der höchste Fall in einer Reihe von Fällen.” 69 In his earlier work, Bousset also deploys this notion in relation to Jesus’Judaism, which he perceives as an outward feature, while Jesus, “internally in the immediate uncon- scious,” is “much freer from it”; thus in Bousset, Jesu Predigt (see. n. 19), 87 (“innerlich im unmittelbaren unbewußten viel freier von demselben”);see Berger, Exegese und Phi- losophie (see n. 35), 93. 70 T. Carlyle, Past and Present (London, 1843), 108 (Book II, Chapter XVII). 71 Carlyle, Past and Present (see n. 70), 108–109. 72 Cf. T. Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History (ed. C. Niemeyer; Lincoln, Nebr.,1966), esp. 196–200. 73 Similarly, in the late Roman republic;cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (see n. 16), 92, 241 (English trans.,138–139, 311). 74 Cf. the introduction of the matter in Carlyle, On Heroes (see n. 72), 1. Bousset’s Religion des Judentums 63 cultic worship of the “cultic hero” Jesus.75 In RJ(2) –explicitly in the final paragraph, implicitly in the overall presentation–the emphasis is more on the hero Jesus who appears as the GreatMan, clears the“chaos” of “Late Judaism,” and achieveswhat the latter, on Bousset’sterms, has been unable toachieve:true, universal religion.

5. “Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem”

Judaism was not alone in constituting the fertile groundfor the emergence of the hero. As Boussetoutlinesinthe last section, which consists of just one long final chapter, “Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem,” it was the contact of Judaism with other religions,with Hellenism and in particular with Iranian thought,thatmadeChristianity possible. “Judaism was the retort in which the various elements were gathered. Then, throughacre- ative miracle,the new formation of thegospel happened.”76 As the nega- tive foil for the Carlylean hero Jesusand as arepresentative of the lifeless stageofFormulas, the character of Judaism is seen by Boussetas“essen- tially imitative and uncreative.” “We do not find in it any creative force, or forcesbywhich those new masses of thought might have been set in mo- tion. Original spiritsare lacking.”77 Therefore, it must have soakedupin- fluences fromelsewhere. Bousset asserts thatthe supplementation of nationalhope by other- worldly expectation, the notion of successive eons, acertain dualistic ten- sion, the beliefindemonsand other Mittelwesen as well as an increasing individualism are in part due to foreign influence.78 Apart from Judaism’s allegedly uncreative nature,Boussetpointstothe “inconsistencyand ab- struseness” of the newideas.79 Finally, he characterizes theHellenistic age “as aperiod of generalconfluence.”80 While the impactofBabylonianre- ligion was limited, though its Weltbild and culturesurely left their marks, that of Iranian-Zoroastrian religion was much stronger. According to Bousset, the encounter betweenIranianand Jewishreligion happened

75 Bousset, Kyrios Christos (see n. 16), 86 (English trans.,131). Cf. for this Berger, Exegese und Philosophie (see n. 35), 99, who suggests that Bousset narrows the sense of Carlyle’s “worship,” which may more generally mean “reverence,” to cultic worship. 76 RJ2,594. 77 RJ2,541. 78 RJ2,540–541. 79 RJ2,542:“Uneinheitlichkeit und Verworrenheit.” 80 RJ2,542:“eine Zeit der allgemeinen Verschmelzung.” 64 Lutz Doering in Babylon, which impliesthatthe Iranianreligion the Jews got toknow had been adulteratedbyBabylonian elements. The third religion is the Hellenicone, in particular the “religion of the educated,” inspired by Plat- onism, theStoa,Neopythagoreism and Orphicmysticism;animportant mediator for these was Diaspora Judaism. Egyptian religionhad only lim- ited influencebut may have beenmediated via Hellenisticsyncretismasit arose in Egypt.Insum,Bousset asserts foreign influenceespecially in the followingareas:“popularsuperstition,” cosmology andcosmogony, ange- lology and, in particular,apocalypticexpectation. The tendency to creditnon-Jewish influences has recently been criti- cized as an effort to push Judaism aside and replace it by anotion of the “Orient” from which Judaism was deliberately excluded.Thus,according to Susannah Heschel, Bousset wasamongthose New Testamentscholars at the beginningofthe twentieth century whoevoked an “Orientalist brew of religions to explain majorfacets of early Christianity, but the religion that was never part of thatOrient was Judaism.”81 With differences in de- tail, Suzanne Marchand, too, perceives the tendencyinRJ(2) to “oriental- ize” Christianity and to juxtapose it with Judaism.82 She comments:“In the eyes of later,especiallyAnglo-American,commentators,what mostske- wed thework of theseChristian ‘orientalizers’was that they tended to re- tain aWellhausian view of petrifiedHellenisticJudaism even as they ea- gerly unveiled amore vital and richerpagan Orient.”83 Bousset’s claims about Iranian influencewere –and still are –controversial. However, we ought to allow for necessary differentiations here. Playingout the pagan Orient against Judaism is more evident in Bousset’s Kyrios Christos, as well as in his earlier contrastive Jesu Predigt. In RJ(2),however,here- gardsJudaism, notascompletely contrastive with early Christianity, but rather as fulfilling an important, though limited,preparatorytask. Thus, the claim of “orientalist” sidelining of Judaism ought to be refined for RJ(2). For Bousset, precisely some of thefeatureslending themselves to the “universalizing”side within Judaism are claimed to be influenced by non-Jewish religious traditions: individualism, Vergeistigung,cosmo- logical-universal eschatology, otherworldly retribution, and speculations about hypostases, which were mediated especially by Iranian apocalyptic and, to alesserdegree, Hellenistic philosophy. However,weshould recall

81 S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus:Christian Theologians and the BibleinNazi Germany (Princeton, 2008), 59. 82 S.L. Marchand, German Orientalism in the AgeofEmpire:Religion, Race, and Scholar- ship (Cambridge, 2009), 282–284. 83 Marchand, German Orientalism (see n. 82), 290. Bousset’s Religion des Judentums 65 that Boussetassumesforeign influences also for the most “vulgar”formsof “superstition” and legendary narratives.Inacertainway, these foreign in- fluences, too, contribute to the “seething chaos” thatBousset, inspired by Carlyle, detects in Judaism, and they do nothelp resolve the tension be- tween particularisticand universalistic tendencies.84

6. Conclusion

Bousset’s work on Judaism is highly ambivalent and deserves nuanced cri- tique. On the one hand, his religionsgeschichtliche approachtoancient re- ligionshad somepotential in looking at Judaismwith critical acumenand analyzing it fairly as one such “religion.” RJ(2) makes someheadway in this direction, even if, as awhole,itdoes not fulfil its potentialdue to its sub- stantial ideological limitations. From acurrentmethodologicalpoint of view, Bousset’s deploymentofJewish texts from the Greco-Roman period and his reluctance to rely on laterrabbinicworks for the historyand re- ligion of SecondTemple Judaism are not wholly wrongheaded,although the exaggerated contrast between these corpora should be given up and mere second-hand knowledge of rabbinictexts, as was characteristic of Bousset, ought to be replaced by first-hand expertise. On theother hand, Bousset’sapproachinRJ(2) remains crucially shap- ed by wider denigrating views in ProtestantismofJudaism as abarren, le- galistic andnationalisticreligion and by the idealistic “prophetic”histor- iography of Carlyle. While Bousset modified his earlier,starkly antagonis- tic view of Jesusagainst Judaism in favorofanotion of Judaism contributing some Vorarbeit to Christianity, he did not give up his percep- tion of Judaismasirredeemablystuck halfway in its development from particularism to universalism and of Jesus as the “hero” who brings the miraculous denouement –adenouementwhich rendersthe old religion pointless indeed.Inaddition, Bousset’s tendency to creditsome of the “no- bler” aspects –byhis count–of Judaismwith foreign, especially Iranian, provenance can be seen as imbalanced“orientalizing”:whatisJewish is not really good, and what is goodisnot really Jewish;although, as men- tioned, Boussetalso deemed some of the more “vulgar”ideas to be derived from Persia. Moreover,Bousset’s antagonism towards contemporary Jew-

84 Cf. RJ2,594:“Es gelingt vor allem dem Jenseitsgedanken nicht, die fanatisch nationalen, partikularistisch beschränkten Zukunftsgedanken der israelitischen Religion zu klären. Die Religion des Judentums wird gerade durch ihn zu einem widerspruchsvollen Ge- bilde.” 66 Lutz Doering ish scholarshipand hisoccasional retentionofstereotypes, for example in his explanation of hostility towards the Jews in antiquity,85 runthe risk of reinforcing anti-Jewish prejudice. These highly problematicfacets of Bousset’s work aside, the steep in- creaseinavailabletexts fromthe second century BCE to the second century CE,especially the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, has urged subsequent scholars to redraw the landscape of Judaism in theperiod, in which some connections between the Scrollsand apocalypticliterature, between the Scrolls and rabbinic literature, andbetweenapocalyptic and rabbinic literature have become apparent.Inthis context, the specific profilesofthe ancient Jewish sources,all too often lumpedtogether by Bousset,would have to be reconsidered. Equally, Bousset’s datingofsome of the texts knowntohim ought to be reconsidered in light of these findings. All of this shouldhelp overcome the notorious opposition between aRabbi- nics-centeredand aPseudepigrapha-centeredapproachsoprominent in Bousset’stime, in away that is considerate of both the specific profile of literary witnesses and their interconnection within ancient Judaism. The taskofasystemic account of Jewishreligion in the Greco-Romanpe- riod replacing Bousset’s Religion des Judentums –ofahandbook thatpres- ents structures of Jewish “religion”without leveling the differences be- tween the various texts,86 and that takesinstitutions,87 practices, and group formation as much into account as ideasand beliefs –this task is still lying ahead, more than acentury after Bousset’s“first go.”88

LutzDoering Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum Wilmergasse 1 48143 Münster Germany [email protected]

85 Cf. RJ,76(similarly, RJ2,87), where hostility against “the Jew” is partly explained as a reaction to “his riches, the superiority and scrupulousness in trade, which the Jew as oriental brought along” (“[s]ein Reichtum, die Überlegenheit und Scrupellosigkeit im Handel, die der Jude als Orientale mit sich brachte”). 86 As is the danger in Sanders’focus on a“pattern” of religion. 87 Cf. the similar emphasis on institutions in the study of ancient Christian theology pro- posed by C. Markschies, Kaiserzeitlichechristliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen:Pro- legomena zu einer Geschichte der antiken christlichen Theologie (Tübingen, 2007). 88 Recently, the editor of Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (HNT), Professor Andreas Lindemann, invited me to write the volume replacing RJ3 in the series. The present con- tribution is my “first go” in approaching this challenging task.